Slifkin 4 - The Response

The organizers of the condemnation were not prepared for the reaction that it provoked. They expected it to pass without much notice, as many other such routine proclamations pass and fade without much notice. Having signed a document that they did not compose (in several cases having signed a somewhat different text than the one ultimately publicized), the signatories were unexpectedly faced with clarifying to others as well as to themselves what it was that they signed, what the implications were, how should it be defended and how to clarify and explain their position. Not surprisingly, disparate explanations and clarifications issued forth, farther obscuring the debate.

At the same time, it was clear from the beginning that  the basis for the authority to ban is the authority to ban. The opponents best argument has always remained the stature of those who signed; it was not surprising then that they moved in the direction of consolidating and shoring up the ban and not to communicating and justifying the rational basis for it. This is, after all, the world of authority and tradition, where quoting a name is a sufficient and the only necessary justification for principle or a position.

The pressure mounted on those who did not sign and those who were rumored and informally quoted to oppose it. Some of it was organized and some was not. The maskimim were pressured to withdraw their approbations. They also received much unplanned feedback, for in controversies of this kind, everyone has an opinion that he is more than willing to share. The hold-outs began to receive a constant stream of unhelpful and unsolicited opinions and suggestions from well- meaning local orthodox rabbis and other  assorted mavens. They found that this entire matter began to take up entirely too much of their time and beginning to curtail their effectiveness, and one by one, they divested themselves of their support. After all they only signed an approbation. After all it is true that their generous nature has led them to sign entirely too many approbations and often without the requisite due diligence. After all they signed an approbation but did not sign up for a role that they now found themselves playing.

Thus, the two sides found themselves at a classic draw. Slifkin supporters addressed themselves to the court of public opinion. They reasoned, argued, brought proofs, cajoled and formulated. They built an impressive structure of argument, precedent and defense. The opponents, on the other hand, barely engaged them in that arena. Instead they reinforced the roster of authorities on their side and deprived the Slifkin camp from even a modicum of Chareidi legitimacy. In a way this was classic talking past each other. Slifkin's people engaged on the field of rational argument because they assumed that this was the field of struggle. Like all maskilim, they gave entirely too much respect to the rational faculty of man. It is there, they thought, that matters of faith can be resolved. Their Chareidi detractors, leshitosom, labored on the field of authority and rank, because their whole upbringing, their ethos left them with an unshakable conviction that Truth is determined by authority, rank and precedent and established by recourse to supra-rational argument.

The two sides continue to speak past one another. This conflict will go on because the two sides are both well intentioned, passionate, committed, and do not speak the same language. The prospects for resolution are not encouraging and, I believe, that the issues that it brought to surface are destined to remain with Orthodoxy for a very long time.

Comments

[DK]

You are lookig at this through the eyes of a frum person, which is completely legitimate. But from where I'm standing, nothing will help succinctly explain the problems with haredism to secular Jewry like explaining The Slifkin Ban.

This is why the Left-Wing ultra-Orthodox kiruvniks hate it when it's brought up. It is a trump card. I am grateful for it. Haredism is revealed through it. Aish/Ohr Somayach -- all of them must abide by it, and its implications.

Bwahaha!

[avakesh]

The view from the inside is always more nauanced and multifaceted than from the outside. In that sense it is more true. Knowing the insider's perspective but using the outsider's view - to score points - is hardly something in which to take pride... or pleasure.